Tor

Tor is an encrypted anonymising network that makes it harder to intercept internet communications, or see where communications are coming from or going to.

In order to use the WikiLeaks public submission system as detailed above you can download the Tor Browser Bundle, which is a Firefox-like browser available for Windows, Mac OS X and GNU/Linux and pre-configured to connect using the anonymising system Tor.

Tails

If you are at high risk and you have the capacity to do so, you can also access the submission system through a secure operating system called Tails. Tails is an operating system launched from a USB stick or a DVD that aim to leaves no traces when the computer is shut down after use and automatically routes your internet traffic through Tor. Tails will require you to have either a USB stick or a DVD at least 4GB big and a laptop or desktop computer.

Tips

Our submission system works hard to preserve your anonymity, but we recommend you also take some of your own precautions. Please review these basic guidelines.

1. Contact us if you have specific problems

If you have a very large submission, or a submission with a complex format, or are a high-risk source, please contact us. In our experience it is always possible to find a custom solution for even the most seemingly difficult situations.

2. What computer to use

If the computer you are uploading from could subsequently be audited in an investigation, consider using a computer that is not easily tied to you. Technical users can also use Tails to help ensure you do not leave any records of your submission on the computer.

3. Do not talk about your submission to others

If you have any issues talk to WikiLeaks. We are the global experts in source protection – it is a complex field. Even those who mean well often do not have the experience or expertise to advise properly. This includes other media organisations.

After

1. Do not talk about your submission to others

If you have any issues talk to WikiLeaks. We are the global experts in source protection – it is a complex field. Even those who mean well often do not have the experience or expertise to advise properly. This includes other media organisations.

2. Act normal

If you are a high-risk source, avoid saying anything or doing anything after submitting which might promote suspicion. In particular, you should try to stick to your normal routine and behaviour.

3. Remove traces of your submission

If you are a high-risk source and the computer you prepared your submission on, or uploaded it from, could subsequently be audited in an investigation, we recommend that you format and dispose of the computer hard drive and any other storage media you used.

In particular, hard drives retain data after formatting which may be visible to a digital forensics team and flash media (USB sticks, memory cards and SSD drives) retain data even after a secure erasure. If you used flash media to store sensitive data, it is important to destroy the media.

If you do this and are a high-risk source you should make sure there are no traces of the clean-up, since such traces themselves may draw suspicion.

4. If you face legal action

If a legal action is brought against you as a result of your submission, there are organisations that may help you. The Courage Foundation is an international organisation dedicated to the protection of journalistic sources. You can find more details at https://www.couragefound.org.

Submit documents to WikiLeaks

WikiLeaks publishes documents of political or historical importance that are censored or otherwise suppressed. We specialise in strategic global publishing and large archives.

The following is the address of our secure site where you can anonymously upload your documents to WikiLeaks editors. You can only access this submissions system through Tor. (See our Tor tab for more information.) We also advise you to read our tips for sources before submitting.

wlupld3ptjvsgwqw.onion

Copy this address into your Tor browser. Advanced users, if they wish, can also add a further layer of encryption to their submission using our public PGP key.

If you cannot use Tor, or your submission is very large, or you have specific requirements, WikiLeaks provides several alternative methods. Contact us to discuss how to proceed.

What about broadening the perspectives at that time?
Acknowledging there were a lot of diff views vs she was wrong. ?
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 25, 2015, at 6:57 PM, Tony Carrk <tcarrk@hillaryclinton.com> wrote:
And also for awareness for everyone to have, attached are HRC’s comments on
DOMA Carter from my team put together.
*From:* Dan Schwerin [mailto:dschwerin@hillaryclinton.com]
*Sent:* Sunday, October 25, 2015 6:56 PM
*To:* Amanda Renteria <arenteria@hillaryclinton.com>
*Cc:* Dominic Lowell <dlowell@hillaryclinton.com>; Karen Finney <
kfinney@hillaryclinton.com>; Maya Harris <mharris@hillaryclinton.com>;
Heather Stone <hstone@hillaryclinton.com>; Robby Mook <
re47@hillaryclinton.com>; Jake Sullivan <jsullivan@hillaryclinton.com>;
Jennifer Palmieri <jpalmieri@hillaryclinton.com>; Brian Fallon <
bfallon@hillaryclinton.com>; Kristina Schake <kschake@hillaryclinton.com>;
Marlon Marshall <mmarshall@hillaryclinton.com>; Tony Carrk <
tcarrk@hillaryclinton.com>; Brynne Craig <bcraig@hillaryclinton.com>; Sally
Marx <smarx@hillaryclinton.com>; Teddy Goff <tgoff@hillaryclinton.com>;
John Podesta <john.podesta@gmail.com>; Christina Reynolds <
creynolds@hillaryclinton.com>
*Subject:* Re: one chain on DOMA
I think everyone agrees we shouldn't restate her argument. Question is
whether she's going to agree to explicitly disavow it. And I doubt it.
On Oct 25, 2015, at 6:53 PM, Amanda Renteria <arenteria@hillaryclinton.com>
wrote:
There is no way we have friends to back us up on her interpretation. This
is a major problem if we revisit her argument like this. It's better to do
nothing than to re-state this although she is going to get a question
again.
Working w Dominic now.
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 25, 2015, at 6:34 PM, Dan Schwerin <dschwerin@hillaryclinton.com>
wrote:
I'm not saying double down or ever say it again. I'm just saying that she's
not going to want to say she was wrong about that, given she and her
husband believe it and have repeated it many times. Better to reiterate
evolution, opposition to DOMA when court considered it, and forward looking
stance.
On Oct 25, 2015, at 6:28 PM, Dominic Lowell <dlowell@hillaryclinton.com>
wrote:
Jumping on a call with the kitchen cabinet now to give them an update. Will
turn to this ASAP.
The most recent Blade article has Elizabeth Birch quoted as saying there
was no amendment threat in 1996. Hilary Rosen has already tweeted the same.
I'll ask on the call, but my sense is that there aren't many friends who
will back us up on the point. That's why I'm urging us to back off as much
as we can there.
More soon.
On Sunday, October 25, 2015, Dan Schwerin <dschwerin@hillaryclinton.com>
wrote:
I'd welcome specific edits. I'm fine not mentioning WJC if that's
problematic, but my two cents is that you're not going to get her to
disavow her explanation about the constitutional amendment and this
exercise will be most effective if it provides some context and then goes
on offense.
On Oct 25, 2015, at 6:15 PM, Karen Finney <kfinney@hillaryclinton.com
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','kfinney@hillaryclinton.com');>> wrote:
If the criticism is that she has said before and reiterated on Friday then
hit by Bernie yesterday is t that the context?
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 25, 2015, at 6:00 PM, Dominic Lowell <dlowell@hillaryclinton.com
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','dlowell@hillaryclinton.com');>> wrote:
Sorry, on phone so focused more on overall thoughts than line edits. Can
call you directly if any of this is unclear. Sending to all so people can
react, push back, etc.
I originally flagged HRC's Maddow remarks as potentially problematic in
part because her wording closely linked her to two unfavorable policies of
the past even as no one in the community was asking her to "own" them.
Given that, my recommendation would be to make this statement about just
her, her evolution, and her record -- not bring in WJC.
Relatedly, if we release a statement tonight, it will very clearly be in
response to the Maddow interview. To the extent we can, I advocate for
owning that so that we can clean this up completely, rightly position her
as a champion of LGBT issues, and make sure we move on from any discussion
of looming amendments or her being involved in passing either DADT or DOMA.
Without getting into the weeds, can we say that the broader point is that
the country is in a different place now on LGBT issues -- and thank
goodness it is -- and that she's so happy each policy has been placed in
the dustbin of history?
Last thought: I have raised this a few times to a smaller number of people
on this thread but will flag this for the larger group as well. At Keene
State College, she specifically cited friends playing a part in her
evolution, which we echo here. That's fine, IMO, and quite believable. But
if I were a reporter and wanted to keep the evolution story alive, I would
start asking which friends she was talking to and ask us to provide them.
Not a problem per se, but I think it is worth flagging now so we aren't
caught by surprise later.
On Sunday, October 25, 2015, Dan Schwerin <dschwerin@hillaryclinton.com>
wrote:
This is a little long, but see what you think. Tried to 1) place this in a
context of 'asked and answered,' 2) point to how they've both forthrightly
explained their evolution, 3) cite her positive LGBT record, 4) get in a
little dig at Sanders for being so backwards looking.
STATEMENT
In 2013, when the Supreme Court was considering whether to uphold the
Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), Bill and I explained publicly how and why
we became strong supporters of marriage equality. Bill, who signed DOMA
nearly twenty years ago after an overwhelming vote in Congress, called the
law a discriminatory vestige of a less tolerant America and urged the Court
to strike it down. I added my voice in support of marriage equality
“personally and as a matter of policy and law.” As I said then, LGBT
Americans are full and equal citizens and they deserve the full and equal
rights of citizenship. Like so many others, my personal views have been
shaped over time by people I have known and loved, by my experience
representing our nation on the world stage, my devotion to law and human
rights, and the guiding principles of my faith. That’s why, as a Senator,
I pushed for laws that would extend protections to the LGBT community in
the workplace and that would make violence towards LGBT individuals a hate
crime. And as Secretary of State, I put LGBT rights on the global agenda
and told the world that “gay rights are human rights and human rights are
gay rights.” In my speech last night in Iowa, I didn’t look back to the
America of the past, I looked forward to the America we need to build
together. I pledged to fight for LGBT Americans who, despite all our
progress, in many places can still get married on Saturday and fired on
Monday just because of who they are and who they love. In this campaign
and as President, I will keep fighting for equality and opportunity for
every American.
On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 4:03 PM, Dominic Lowell <dlowell@hillaryclinton.com>
wrote:
+Amanda's work account.
On Sunday, October 25, 2015, Maya Harris <mharris@hillaryclinton.com> wrote:
From Richard:
Since I was asked on Friday about the Defense of Marriage Act in an
interview on MSNBC, I've checked with people who were involved then to make
sure I had all my facts right. It turns out I was mistaken and the effort
to pass a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage came some
years later. The larger point I was trying to make about DOMA, however, is
still true. It was neither proposed nor supported by anyone in the Clinton
administration at the time. It was an effort by the Republicans in Congress
to distract attention from the real issues facing the country by using gay
marriage, which had very little support then, as a wedge issue in the
election. The legislation passed by overwhelming veto-proof margins in both
houses of Congress and President Clinton signed it with serious
reservations he expressed at the time. Luckily the country has evolved way
beyond this in the last 20 years and most Americans, including the Supreme
Court, now embrace LGBT equality. We are a better country for it. Although
there is much work that remains, and I'm eager to help advance the day when
we are all truly equal.
On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 4:51 PM, Dominic Lowell <dlowell@hillaryclinton.com>
wrote:
+ JP's personal email
On Sunday, October 25, 2015, Dominic Lowell <dlowell@hillaryclinton.com>
wrote:
Here is what Gautam put together to be helpful:
"I'm not my husband. I understand why he believed that was the right thing
to do at the time, but obviously I wish it had gone differently. Look,
we've all come along way since the 90s and I'm proud to have been a part of
an Administration that has made it possible for gay troops to serve openly
and loving gay couples to get married. I'm also proud of MY record as
Secretary of State. I think the community knows I will be the ally they
deserve."
On Sunday, October 25, 2015, Dan Schwerin <dschwerin@hillaryclinton.com>
wrote:
This WJC op-Ed may be helpful:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bill-clinton-its-time-to-overturn-doma/2013/03/07/fc184408-8747-11e2-98a3-b3db6b9ac586_story.html
Bill Clinton: It’s time to overturn DOMA
*The writer is the 42nd president of the United States.*
*I*n 1996, I signed the Defense of Marriage Act. Although that was only 17
years ago, it was a very different time. In no state in the union was
same-sex marriage recognized, much less available as a legal right, but
some were moving in that direction. Washington, as a result, was swirling
with all manner of possible responses, some quite draconian. As a
bipartisan group of former senators stated in their March 1 amicus brief to
the Supreme Court, many supporters of the bill known as DOMA believed that
its passage “would defuse a movement to enact a constitutional amendment
banning gay marriage, which would have ended the debate for a generation or
more.” It was under these circumstances that DOMA came to my desk, opposed
by only 81 of the 535 members of Congress.
On March 27, DOMA will come before the Supreme Court
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2012/12/07/the-supreme-court-takes-up-doma/>,
and the justices must decide whether it is consistent with the principles
of a nation that honors freedom, equality and justice above all, and is
therefore constitutional. As the president who signed the act into law, I
have come to believe that DOMA is contrary to those principles and, in
fact, incompatible with our Constitution.
Because Section 3 of the act defines marriage as being between a man and a
woman, same-sex couples who are legally married in nine states and the
District of Columbia are denied the benefits of more than a thousand
federal statutes and programs available to other married couples. Among
other things, these couples cannot file their taxes jointly, take unpaid
leave to care for a sick or injured spouse or receive equal family health
and pension benefits as federal civilian employees. Yet they pay taxes,
contribute to their communities and, like all couples, aspire to live in
committed, loving relationships, recognized and respected by our laws.
When I signed the bill, I included a statement
<http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/user/scotts/ftp/wpaf2mc/clinton.html> with
the admonition that “enactment of this legislation should not, despite the
fierce and at times divisive rhetoric surrounding it, be understood to
provide an excuse for discrimination.” Reading those words today, I know
now that, even worse than providing an excuse for discrimination, the law
is itself discriminatory. It should be overturned.
We are still a young country, and many of our landmark civil rights
decisions are fresh enough that the voices of their champions still echo,
even as the world that preceded them becomes less and less familiar. We
have yet to celebrate the centennial of the 19th Amendment, but a society
that denied women the vote would seem to us now not unusual or
old-fashioned but alien. I believe that in 2013 DOMA and opposition to
marriage equality are vestiges of just such an unfamiliar society.
Americans have been at this sort of a crossroads often enough to recognize
the right path. We understand that, while our laws may at times lag behind
our best natures, in the end they catch up to our core values. One hundred
fifty years ago, in the midst of the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln
concluded a message to Congress by posing the very question we face today:
“It is not ‘Can any of us imagine better?’ but ‘Can we all do better
<http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29503>?’ ”
The answer is of course and always yes. In that spirit, I join with the
Obama administration, the petitioner Edith Windsor
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/edie-windsors-fight-for-same-sex-marriage-rights-continues-even-after-partners-death/2012/07/19/gJQARguhwW_story.html>,
and the many other dedicated men and women who have engaged in this
struggle for decades in urging the Supreme Court to overturn the Defense of
Marriage Act.
On Oct 25, 2015, at 4:19 PM, Kate Offerdahl <kofferdahl@hillaryclinton.com>
wrote:
Hi all - we are going to do 4:30.
Those here at the Hilton can take the call from the staff room.
Call-In: 718-441-3763, no pin
On Oct 25, 2015, at 4:14 PM, Heather Stone <hstone@hillaryclinton.com>
wrote:
Looping in Kate. She is going to get it scheduled.
On Sunday, October 25, 2015, Dominic Lowell <dlowell@hillaryclinton.com>
wrote:
All times are good for me.
On Sunday, October 25, 2015, Heather Stone <hstone@hillaryclinton.com>
wrote:
Sounds like tony can do 4:15? Can others? If not I could do anytime before
5:15 or after 6.
On Sunday, October 25, 2015, Robby Mook <re47@hillaryclinton.com> wrote:
Adding Dominic.
Agree--let's get our people on a call and push back
I'm also tied up for next few hours @ finance stuff. But let's get this
moving.
On Oct 25, 2015, at 3:48 PM, Jake Sullivan <jsullivan@hillaryclinton.com>
wrote:
Adding Tony, who recalls this from ’08 when she made a similar argument.
We did not turn up much to support idea that alternative was a
constitutional amendment.
Also adding Schwerin. I think we should pull her statements around the
time she embraced marriage equality and place greatest emphasis on the fact
that she fully acknowledges that she evolved.
I’m on calls next two hours but Maya has my proxy.
*From:* Jennifer Palmieri [mailto:jpalmieri@hillaryclinton.com
<jpalmieri@hillaryclinton.com>]
*Sent:* Sunday, October 25, 2015 3:46 PM
*To:* Brian Fallon <bfallon@hillaryclinton.com>; John Podesta <
jp66@hillaryclinton.com>; Robby Mook <re47@hillaryclinton.com>; Kristina
Schake <kschake@hillaryclinton.com>; Maya Harris <mharris@hillaryclinton.com>;
Jake Sullivan <jsullivan@hillaryclinton.com>; Marlon Marshall <
mmarshall@hillaryclinton.com>; Heather Stone <hstone@hillaryclinton.com>
*Subject:* one chain on DOMA
Think all of us are getting incoming from friends in LGBT community about
DOMA comments.
HuffPo has reached out to us. I heard from Socarides that NYT was doing
something.
I have no understanding of the issue – but clear this has a head of steam.
Brian can put a statement out, but policy and political need to tell us
what you want us to do.
I would suggest a conference call with relevant parties for how we are
going to handle all around – press, groups, politics. I have a bad
schedule for rest of day and may not be able to be on such a call but
don’t think I am needed. We just need guidance and then on political end
think we need a plan for how to hose down anxious friends.
--
Dominic Lowell
LGBT Outreach Director | Hillary for America
661.364.5186
dlowell@hillaryclinton.com
--
Dominic Lowell
LGBT Outreach Director | Hillary for America
661.364.5186
dlowell@hillaryclinton.com
--
Dominic Lowell
LGBT Outreach Director | Hillary for America
661.364.5186
dlowell@hillaryclinton.com
--
Dominic Lowell
LGBT Outreach Director | Hillary for America
661.364.5186
dlowell@hillaryclinton.com
--
Dominic Lowell
LGBT Outreach Director | Hillary for America
661.364.5186
dlowell@hillaryclinton.com
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','dlowell@hillaryclinton.com');>
--
Dominic Lowell
LGBT Outreach Director | Hillary for America
661.364.5186
dlowell@hillaryclinton.com
<HRC DOMA.DOCX>